Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: central_va
central_va: "you are regurgitating the same reconstructed bull$h1t history we were all ladled in public school.
No original thought here on your part.
You are showing yourself to be well indoctrinated, just like a good little Nazi."

There is your third time posting "that word", which by common understanding means you have now three-times admitted to losing the argument, and so resort to nothing but name-calling.

But more to your point: in the immortal words of John Adams and Ronald Reagan:

So whatever facts we learned in school, they are still facts, no matter how much we might wish otherwise.
Yes, of course, there may well be more facts, which would change the picture considerably, but those have to be carefully establish.

And your repeated use of "that word" does not change any facts, FRiend. ;-)

central_va: "Some as adults, study original sources and rise above it, some don't."

Sorry, but "original sources" don't support Neo-Confederate revisionists' "history", since it is only a collection of myths intended to salve "wounded pride" in descendants of the losing side.

809 posted on 03/21/2013 7:38:51 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies ]

To: BroJoeK; central_va
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

I suggest that differing understandings of the past are not based on different facts, but rather on different ideas as to what those facts mean.

Accurate scholarship has the potential, in theory anyway, to allow us to reach an accurate understanding of the facts of history, to the extent documented.

But the bare-bones facts have little real meaning until somebody adds an opinion as to what those facts mean, and often how they apply to today's world. And I strongly suspect there will always be strong differences of opinion in this regard.

The problem is that far too often these discussions avoid what I consider the critical two-step process of: 1. Determining to agree as to what the facts are in the case. Who did what to whom when, and in what order? 2. What does that timeline mean?

If we make it clear whether we're talking about step 1 or step 2, possibly we could make progress.

823 posted on 03/21/2013 11:10:06 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson